Dedicated Airceaft Bodies

[whippersnapper]

.......................
But, anyway, a fast-firing, intermediate caliber gun should work well on a fighter.

vtol vs vtol, yes. vtol to ground targets would depend on mg munitions and current wz mg munitions are more in-line with the gattling gun circa the 1860s.

I was thinking, a scout plane would be also very nice. Tweak it for low speed and hitpoints, but add a very good sight and hability to design artillery weapons, maybe.

for me scout = greater emphasis on intel and all that this would imply for advanced game play on the side of maneuver-deployments. for sometime now i have hitched my efforts on uav engineering = scouts. recent declassified material places the success of the 'surge' in Iraq squarely on the uavs called the 'predator' and the 'shadow' - that's hard data. basically wz engagements fall within the ww1 envelope - lasers, railguns, hover and vtols notwithstanding.

i'm not clear on your connecting the "ability to design artillery weapons" via the scout.... though their deployment is crystal clear.

[Olrox]

The scout plane would "strike" the target by directing artilley assigned to it. I meant:
1-The scout pinpoints the target with its sensor, by flying over it;
2-Artillery assigned to the scout are then ordered to attack the target, until it dies or the unit receives new orders;
3-After pinpointing a target, the scout needs to go back to base and "rearm" (let's say, for instance, pick up another targeting beacon or recharge battery, anything).

It would function just like a regular sensor turret, but needs to "rearm" to start the cycle again.
It could also function more like a commander, then you could assign other strike craft to it.

[psychopompos]

It would function just like a regular sensor turret, but needs to "rearm" to start the cycle again.
It could also function more like a commander, then you could assign other strike craft to it.

so what you want is a wz version of awacs?

[whippersnapper]

The scout plane would "strike" the target by directing artilley assigned to it. I meant:
1-The scout pinpoints the target with its sensor, by flying over it;
2-Artillery assigned to the scout are then ordered to attack the target, until it dies or the unit receives new orders;
3-After pinpointing a target, the scout needs to go back to base and "rearm" (let's say, for instance, pick up another targeting beacon or recharge battery, anything).

the intel package aboard the "scout" would apply to ANY offensive or defensive assets - artillery for sure, but also for combat group deployments consisting of tanks, borgs, vtols, troop transports, navy, etc... we are actually on the same page here, more or less. we are just using different terminology - you say 'scout' and i say 'uav'. the point of all this being the intelligent, and precise, piercing of the Fog of War (which also paves the way for 'PGMS' - aka, Precision Guided Munitions - gotta bring wz into 21st century at least. this early to mid-twentieth century military is just plain hogwash).

It would function just like a regular sensor turret, but needs to "rearm" to start the cycle again.
It could also function more like a commander, then you could assign other strike craft to it.

so what you want is a wz version of awacs?

how it works is in a major theater of operations (multiple, coordinated, offensive vectors of air, ground &, if supported by the geography, water assets - plus supply chains for all) the awacs helps create the overall battle space from the intel of multiple sources including uavs aka scouts (and mauvs, which really spice up the possibilities) for command and control HQ's decision-making - which means YOU, the commander of the game.

this total package is known as Advanced C3.

for commanders on the ground leading combat groups the package is called Deep Green

so awacs and uavs/scouts CANNOT be the same unit just from a physical engineering position - they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. in addition there is a fail safe redundancy built into 'Advanced C3' such that while there is total integration in the roll-out, there is also decentralization in the case of losing individual intel assets.

also - there is indeed a very KISS implementation method for all the above in wz as it currently exists that would address many of the core game play weaknesses that plague the game. (included in that would be imbalance issues... that is, dealing effectively BEFORE optimal balancing is achieved !)... course for the most trick implementation you need new UIs and more sophisticated scripting.

.

[Skrim]

The only reason for dedicated aircraft bodies in WZ2100 is because, except for Bug, Viper, and Leopard based designs, all other VTOLs are hideous. But then, even the existing dedicated air vehicles, the Transport and the Cyborg Transport, don't look very airworthy, and instead look like their being held aloft more by the power of their engines than by wings. Same thing for all those flying brick VTOL designs, except in their case, it's much worse.

But if dedicated aircraft bodies are to be designed, they have to look like they can hover, take off and land vertically. Because all aircraft in WZ2100 have to be VTOLs. So here's my idea:

Dedicated aircraft are researched and built straight out of the box like the Cyborg Transport, and have no design stage. A player would need to research the VTOL techs and research all of the regular vehicle bodies of a faction to unlock that faction's aircraft techs, and would be able to build them once they've researched those techs. Dedicated VTOLs would come in two types: Fighters, and Bombers.

Fighters would be very fast(700) and would have equal armor to their faction's Heavy Body and 2x the HP of their faction's Heavy Body. This means that they would be tougher than regular Light Body VTOLs. But the drawback is that they would only be able to attack enemy aircraft, while regular Light VTOLs can attack any target.

Project Fighter - Adder

HP: 400
Armor: 20/9
Speed: 700
Armament: VTOL Lancer(anti-air only)

It would look like an F-35B, but with a visible VTOL fan(like the one on the Cyborg Transport) in place of the lift-fan doors.

Collective Fighter - Jaguar

HP: 450
Armor: 22/15
Speed: 700
Armament: VTOL Tank Killer(anti-air only)

It would look like a Rafale with swiveling VTOL thrusters(like those seen on Heavy Body VTOLs) in place of the canards and under the wings.

NEXUS Fighter - Wrath

HP: 600
Armor: 28/25
Speed: 700
Armament: VTOL Scourge Missile(anti-air only)

It would look like and X-45 stealth drone, but with a small VTOL lift fan on it's centerline.

Here's the stats of a Lancer-Viper VTOL in comparison:

HP: 170
Armor: 10/4
Speed: 700
Armament: VTOL Lancer(all targets)

The Bombers part, I'll write up later.

[elio]

interesting..

Dedicated aircraft are researched and built straight out of the box like the Cyborg Transport, and have no design stage. A player would need to research the VTOL techs and research all of the regular vehicle bodies of a faction to unlock that faction's aircraft techs, and would be able to build them once they've researched those techs. Dedicated VTOLs would come in two types: Fighters, and Bombers.

i have to disagree, wz's designability is wonderful, and how do you want to manage multiturret support? (at least i like multi-turret vtols)

[whippersnapper]

.

flying tanks - love em or hate em. my sentiments fall in the later category.

"strategy by design" is the pumpkin mantra and unit design is one of pumpkin's signature mechanics, no doubt.

i know what the theoretical mathematical permutations are (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000+, if i recall rightly) BUT has anyone here done an analysis of actual winning game play and the TRUE number of useful unit design combinations ? And then further break that number down by T-level ?

well if you followed thru on that exercise you'd be shocked. shocked because relative to the theoretical permutation, the practical number total is like less than 5% of the theoretical (2000+). think about that. then look at the standard winning "strat/tac - build a bunch of the same units and swarm.

no... the theoretical hype does not even come close to the real.

.

[elio]

has anyone here done an analysis of actual winning game play and the TRUE number of useful unit design combinations ? And then further break that number down by T-level ?

no, you could do one :rolleyes:

here's my idea:
there are derivates of the tank-body: vengeance-ship; vengeance-vtol

depending on the choosen propulsion tank-, ship-, vtol-derivates of all available bodies are shown.
the derivates will show similarities in texture and form, but more aerodynamic or hydrodynamic

afaik modification of armour and power is done by propulsion
-> your problem of ugly vtols is solved (if i recall correctly)

[Zarel]

So here's my idea:

[...]

Project Fighter - Adder

HP: 400
Armor: 20/9
Speed: 700
Armament: VTOL Lancer(anti-air only)

[...]

Here's the stats of a Lancer-Viper VTOL in comparison:

HP: 170
Armor: 10/4
Speed: 700
Armament: VTOL Lancer(all targets)

The Bombers part, I'll write up later.

Those are the stats of a VTOL Lancer Viper VTOL in 1.10 and 2.0; in 2.1, it'd have 365 HP.

[Deus Siddis]

Folks, if you don't like Warzone's modular units, you can always play one of the many Spring games. Because that is basically the one thing that really separates Warzone's gameplay from its competition.

Trying to hack away at this feature simply to meet your personal senses of aesthetics is just insane. Instead, I would propose an aesthetic fix for an aesthetic 'issue'- that being making custom versions of models of each propulsion system for each body. Essentially this is the reverse- propulsion models are customized around each body rather than bodies being customized for particular propulsion types like sea and air.

[Rman Virgil]

----------->

Trying to hack away at this feature simply to meet your personal senses of aesthetics is just insane.

* IMHO, that is a tad unfair.

* There are something like 1850+ worthless combinations out of the theoretical 2000+...... and that does not include "flying tanks".... which I do believe transcends pure subjective aesthetics.

* I believe both proposals made already (though quite different) have genuine merit & both are actually good for dealing with the absurdities of this overly vaunted feature (play enough WZ Mp and you'll know where of I speak. Plus, where are the hordes of dedicated RTS MPers breaking down the "gates" to play WZ because of it's special unit design mechanic ? It's been 10 years, the word is out about WZs status these days....so why does this mechanic not have a robust, thriving, following in MP ??). Just cause something is unique doesn't ensure or presume enduring success. Look at the Ford Edsel.

* The real question is, out of the different proposals, which will likely make it all the way through development to full implementation - because the work involved is not equal. Also - one can be done as a Mod... the other, not really .... and that can factor in as a legit prototyping stage or direction to initiate. Let's also recall that there have been instances where Mods have completely outstripped the original in popularity. I can also see a way of melding both distinct approaches, but I'll spare you the details.

* Anyway, I consider what I just said so much blah, blah, because I'm not doing any of the work it would take to address this issue here. I only take seriously what I have to say if I'm actively engaged in doing the work.

Regards, RV

[Olrox]

Hey, how do you take a feature out of the game by adding things to it? I don't quite understand that.
The modular system from warzone 2100 clearly adds a nice stage to the manufacture. But, as Whippersnapper said, the practical concept of it is quite reduced. Anyway, I'd NEVER remove the design stage, it's just something that allows creativity to be placed ingame, no matter how limited it is.

Folks, if you don't like Warzone's modular units, you can always play one of the many Spring games. Because that is basically the one thing that really separates Warzone's gameplay from its competition.

Trying to hack away at this feature simply to meet your personal senses of aesthetics is just insane. Instead, I would propose an aesthetic fix for an aesthetic 'issue'- that being making custom versions of models of each propulsion system for each body. Essentially this is the reverse- propulsion models are customized around each body rather than bodies being customized for particular propulsion types like sea and air.

well, it just doesn't make sense to simply adapt the body to the propulsion, this way. You research a chassis. Then you research a new propulsion, but how do you adapt a tank chassis to aircraft cockpits? I mean, even if at the stage of the chassis research, blueprints for cockpit adaptation where made, it looks just awkward to just change the shape for it to fly.

Function is at least as important as form, right Zarel?
The function of the fightersis to function as a anti-aircraft vehicle only. Now, put the anti-aircraft guns from warzone 2100 on a python vtol and you've got your perfect actual concept of a fighter made by the current modular system. Of course, we don't want Vertical Take-Off and Landing Ack-Acks, sorry, but any weapon you currently put on a VTOL looks strange, bulky and improvised.
The best way (at least for me and whippersnapper, I think) for integrating the weapons to the chassis in a way VTOLs don't look like an upside-down tank with wings is to make them already integrated. Multi-turrets or weapon bays are to be combinations already made, I think. Those should be adequated to the tech tree acording to T1 T2 and T3, and both weapons are upgraded. well, if you had tank killer missiles and assault guns, you wouldn't make any more lancer-with-machineguns, I think.
Again, There's no way no one can ever think to consider to "hack away" the modular system from warzone 2100. It's something to be added to the game.

[Skrim]

how do you adapt a tank chassis to aircraft cockpits? I mean, even if at the stage of the chassis research, blueprints for cockpit adaptation where made, it looks just awkward to just change the shape for it to fly.

Who needs a cockpit? The aircraft in the game, I always believed, were unmanned droids. Like this:

0009.jpg

The thing in the pic is a mockup of the X-47 Pegasus, a prototype unmanned carrier-launched stealth bomber for the U.S Navy. If it's possible now, it should be possible then.

Anyway, that point is off-topic.

Now, put the anti-aircraft guns from warzone 2100 on a python vtol and you've got your perfect actual concept of a fighter made by the current modular system.

That's not possible. The AA guns don't have a VTOL compatible version. Even if they did, they'd be way too heavy to be of any use. The main air-to-air weapons in the current game are the Lancer and the Scourge Missile.

The problem with them is that they'll shoot at ANY target, and although they're extremely effective against enemy aircraft, there is no option to make them only attack enemy aircraft instead of wasting their ammo in an overkill attack against some stupid cyborg. Another problem is that the VTOLs all chase after one enemy plane and fire 8 rockets at it when 2 are enough to shoot it down, wasting lots of precious ammo in the process and leaving the other enemy planes intact(this flaw is also a problem in SAMs, but they would be ober-powerful it wasn't for this problem).

The only way I've been able to get around the second problem is by using fighters patrolling at different points along a known attack route, or by using a standing fighter patrol in conjunction with fighters scrambled from VTOL strike towers. It still doesn't solve the first problem, though, but it works when there are no ground unit distractions.

[whippersnapper]

.

Skrim raises some of the most serious issues with Vtol game play mechanics (I would also include in that 'absolute altitude').

from what I understand, I believe the solutions will come about thru EG's work on replacing the wz ui widgets scheme, Elio's work on new GUIs and the way the command pre-sets are handled (i believe they are hard-coded now, as are the widgets and commander ai, where as optimally i think they should be handled by script-code but I'm not sure what work that would entail as far as an instruction scheme to the game engine and possibly using Lua..)

.

[Zarel]

The function of the fightersis to function as a anti-aircraft vehicle only. Now, put the anti-aircraft guns from warzone 2100 on a python vtol and you've got your perfect actual concept of a fighter made by the current modular system.

Hey, hey, the following are all considered anti-aircraft weapons:

VTOL Machinegun
VTOL Twin Machinegun
VTOL Heavy Machinegun
VTOL Assault Gun
VTOL Lancer
VTOL Tank Killer
VTOL Scourge Missile
VTOL Needle Gun
VTOL Rail Gun

The general rule is, all machineguns, rockets, missiles, and rails are no longer anti-personnel/anti-tank, but become anti-air when put on a VTOL (most other weapons stay the same, but notably pulse laser becomes anti-tank). A VTOL heavy machinegun is basically a Cyclone, and a VTOL assault gun is basically a Whirlwind.